henry72
May 4, 04:10 PM
I think Apple might update the firmware. It will appear a Mac App Store icon when user hold down the option key. Also it will allow user to put their Apple ID and choose a Wifi network. Isn't it a good idea? :D
I mean how many time you need to reinstall Mac OS lol
Mac App Store will be the fastest way to get what you want and this is the future. Disc is OVER!
I mean how many time you need to reinstall Mac OS lol
Mac App Store will be the fastest way to get what you want and this is the future. Disc is OVER!
MacRumors
Nov 26, 10:20 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Smarthouse.com.au claims (http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Automation/Display_Panels?Article=/Automation/Display%20Panels/H9R6N2M2) that Apple has a full working prototype of a Mac tablet PC within their labs with plans for a 2007 launch.
According to sources in Taiwan, the targets for this unreleased Mac tablet are expected to be home and education markets rather than the enterprise market.
The Mac tablet has been designed to handle third party applications such as home automation software that will allow users to control lighting, audio, entertainment devices and security feeds. It also acts as a full blown PC has wireless linking for a new generation of Wireless Hi Fi speakers that are currently being tested by Apple.
The Intel-based Tablet Mac would also offer a docking station to provide HDMI output to the appropriate screen. Beyond using the technology documented in Apple's recent patent applications for touch-screen/tablet Macs, Apple is reportedly licensing at least three patents from 3rd party companies.
This is not the first time that there have been rumors about a Mac tablet. In fact, rumors of a Mac tablet culminated in early 2003 with significant evidence that a Mac tablet project was in the works at that time. At the time, one description of the tablet at the time was as follows:
A device that superficially resembles a large iPod with an 8-inch diagonal screen, lacks a keyboard, packs USB and FireWire ports, and runs Mac OS X along with a variety of multimedia goodies.
The tablet, of course, never saw the light of day... though its unclear why Apple never released the tablet (if it did indeed exist).
Smarthouse.com.au claims (http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Automation/Display_Panels?Article=/Automation/Display%20Panels/H9R6N2M2) that Apple has a full working prototype of a Mac tablet PC within their labs with plans for a 2007 launch.
According to sources in Taiwan, the targets for this unreleased Mac tablet are expected to be home and education markets rather than the enterprise market.
The Mac tablet has been designed to handle third party applications such as home automation software that will allow users to control lighting, audio, entertainment devices and security feeds. It also acts as a full blown PC has wireless linking for a new generation of Wireless Hi Fi speakers that are currently being tested by Apple.
The Intel-based Tablet Mac would also offer a docking station to provide HDMI output to the appropriate screen. Beyond using the technology documented in Apple's recent patent applications for touch-screen/tablet Macs, Apple is reportedly licensing at least three patents from 3rd party companies.
This is not the first time that there have been rumors about a Mac tablet. In fact, rumors of a Mac tablet culminated in early 2003 with significant evidence that a Mac tablet project was in the works at that time. At the time, one description of the tablet at the time was as follows:
A device that superficially resembles a large iPod with an 8-inch diagonal screen, lacks a keyboard, packs USB and FireWire ports, and runs Mac OS X along with a variety of multimedia goodies.
The tablet, of course, never saw the light of day... though its unclear why Apple never released the tablet (if it did indeed exist).
Multimedia
Aug 4, 07:29 PM
The company that really deserves criticism is intuit. They recently released quicken 2007 and it was not UB. They were releasing a new product and they chose to ignore intel Mac users. Makes you wonder if they are going to stay in the mac market at all. Maybe in the future they will just recommend running parallel and windows, to use quicken on an intel mac.That version of Quicken doesn't run fast enough in Rosetta? Seems like it would. :confused: :eek:
Detlev
Aug 4, 09:37 AM
Well, it makes sense that Apple would have to be aggresively pursuing these chips now that they are in the true PC market. If they were to sit on their laurels they would honestly find out how fast this market would eat them alive. It does not take much to assume, guess, spread rumors about such a thing and be correct.
bhurdscu
May 6, 01:46 AM
I agree with a lot of what other people are saying. ARM designs will not be able to keep up with Intel. Intel has the performance advantage, and ARM has the power advantage right now. I see Intel moving into ARM's business before ARM can get into Intel's business.
A rumor that would be more realistic would be Apple converting the iPhone and iPad to Intel once Intel can get the power down on their chips.
A rumor that would be more realistic would be Apple converting the iPhone and iPad to Intel once Intel can get the power down on their chips.
Plutonius
May 3, 05:26 PM
methinks we need someone with some perspective in charge here, so before the crazy wizard gets us all killed for his king's secret quests, whatever they are, I propose we follow the wisdom of my brother Jorah
I would rather that you started leading us since you seem to be much more versed in the rules guiding us :).
I would rather that you started leading us since you seem to be much more versed in the rules guiding us :).
applesith
May 6, 12:39 AM
This is the biggest load of ************ I have ever seen on this site. Why would Apple redesign everything in their notebooks to make this switch? What is gained by switching?
DudeDad
Mar 29, 12:37 PM
Right and Window's Phone automatic uploads to Sky Drive, free of charge. What does iOS have?
It has....it's not Windows...that's worth it all...
It has....it's not Windows...that's worth it all...
SandynJosh
Apr 26, 04:52 PM
did you need to use that manual to help operate the phone?
honestly I think android is just as intuitive and easy to use as ios. I can't believe people actually say they don't understand how to use android. for god sakes my 8 year old nephew figured out his dad's android phone after a 30 minutes of playing with it.
I prefer ios for it's elegance but android isn't tough to use at all...
Yes, I did need to use the Android manual... a lot!
I'll bet the 8 year-old relative figured out how to play the games, but did he add names to the address book, download photos to a computer, or set alarms and calendar events? Did he figure out how to get the phone pad to reappear when it disappeared just as he was about to enter a number?
I'm often confronted with a choice of "A" or "B" with the Android phone when I real desire is to do neither. There is no intuitive way to back out of that screen nor lead me to do what I wish.
Apple products are far more intuitive than other products. They just don't look better but the whole user experience is better.
honestly I think android is just as intuitive and easy to use as ios. I can't believe people actually say they don't understand how to use android. for god sakes my 8 year old nephew figured out his dad's android phone after a 30 minutes of playing with it.
I prefer ios for it's elegance but android isn't tough to use at all...
Yes, I did need to use the Android manual... a lot!
I'll bet the 8 year-old relative figured out how to play the games, but did he add names to the address book, download photos to a computer, or set alarms and calendar events? Did he figure out how to get the phone pad to reappear when it disappeared just as he was about to enter a number?
I'm often confronted with a choice of "A" or "B" with the Android phone when I real desire is to do neither. There is no intuitive way to back out of that screen nor lead me to do what I wish.
Apple products are far more intuitive than other products. They just don't look better but the whole user experience is better.
KnightWRX
Apr 24, 04:48 AM
Retina is clearly defined by minimum 300 px/in resolution, so distance from monitor there is nothing to do with. Sitting 10 meters from monitor don't transform your monitor to hiperRetina. Please...
Hum, no it's not. Read the article I linked to and go back to the intro of the iPhone 4. It's 300 PPI at a normal viewing distance for a phone (12 inches). Otherwise it makes no sense. The size of a pixel is relative to its distance from your eye. The further away something it is, the smaller it becomes relatively and thus your eye has more trouble seeing it. Sitting further from your monitor can make the pixels iPhone 4 size in no time at all.
Hum, no it's not. Read the article I linked to and go back to the intro of the iPhone 4. It's 300 PPI at a normal viewing distance for a phone (12 inches). Otherwise it makes no sense. The size of a pixel is relative to its distance from your eye. The further away something it is, the smaller it becomes relatively and thus your eye has more trouble seeing it. Sitting further from your monitor can make the pixels iPhone 4 size in no time at all.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 4, 01:18 PM
So I am planning on buying a MBP a soon or soon after they upgrade to Merom (depending on my $$ situation). BUt, I might be convinced to wait until Leopard is installed on the machines to buy.
Question:
How much will it cost to upgrade? I know that the current version of OSX is $100+ in the Apple store. Is that an upgrade, or for people still running 9? Will the upgrade be that much?
Thanks
Question:
How much will it cost to upgrade? I know that the current version of OSX is $100+ in the Apple store. Is that an upgrade, or for people still running 9? Will the upgrade be that much?
Thanks
Am3822
Sep 15, 04:32 PM
It would be a nice thing to have a rumor-source rating system of some sort -- as a newb, I couldn't really judge from the search results whether MacShrine should be taken seriously or not.
As for the MBP -- I'll believe it when I'll see it.
As for the MBP -- I'll believe it when I'll see it.
M87
Apr 20, 12:53 AM
I don't think I'll be upgrading if that's all it is.
kntgsp
Apr 24, 04:52 AM
Apple's problem is that they put "Looks" before performance.
They crippled their chances of ever becoming a serious competitor to the PC for games due to deciding to use giant laptops on a stand which meant they could not cool any decent graphics cards, handing the gaming crown to the PC for years on a plate.
As for the future who knows.
That issue could have been largely solved if they had just faced a standard high end GPU with the intake facing towards the back and the exhaust on the side. But Apple is too vain to put a vent on the rear of the iMac to accomodate the intake of a high quality GPU, let alone a slim exhaust vent on the side.
If they had simply used a standard GPU like that it would have opened up quality gaming on the Mac and made it simple to upgrade to newer cards so that people didn't have to chuck the entire computer every time they wanted a new video card.
They crippled their chances of ever becoming a serious competitor to the PC for games due to deciding to use giant laptops on a stand which meant they could not cool any decent graphics cards, handing the gaming crown to the PC for years on a plate.
As for the future who knows.
That issue could have been largely solved if they had just faced a standard high end GPU with the intake facing towards the back and the exhaust on the side. But Apple is too vain to put a vent on the rear of the iMac to accomodate the intake of a high quality GPU, let alone a slim exhaust vent on the side.
If they had simply used a standard GPU like that it would have opened up quality gaming on the Mac and made it simple to upgrade to newer cards so that people didn't have to chuck the entire computer every time they wanted a new video card.
SuperCachetes
Apr 18, 12:28 PM
Interesting poll by Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147152/Americans-Split-Whether-Taxes-High.aspx
That's good stuff. ;)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147152/Americans-Split-Whether-Taxes-High.aspx
That's good stuff. ;)
Makosuke
May 6, 05:10 AM
I'm not so much joining in the discussion as publicly recording what I think is going to happen in a few years based not really on this prediction, but the way things are going in general, so that I can point to this post in a few years and either say "I told you so" or "look how clueless I was."
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 08:30 AM
Believe it or not about 1/2 of iPhone 4 owners believe they have a 4g phone.
And half of the android users believe they have an iphone.
And half of the android users believe they have an iphone.
mattwolfmatt
May 7, 10:21 AM
I get the feeling they are not really making any money on it, so it would make sense to give it away as a benefit of "using a mac."
Huh? If they aren't making any money for it now (with relatively few people paying for the service) how would it make sense to give it away for free (with many many more people not paying for it?)
I for one use it ALL the time. When you have more than one device (multiple macs, iphone), it's SO nice to have them sync wirelessly, immediately, and without having to login every time, on the native apps. iCal, Contacts, Safari links: I am a very frequent user of the mobileme syncing on all of these.
Huh? If they aren't making any money for it now (with relatively few people paying for the service) how would it make sense to give it away for free (with many many more people not paying for it?)
I for one use it ALL the time. When you have more than one device (multiple macs, iphone), it's SO nice to have them sync wirelessly, immediately, and without having to login every time, on the native apps. iCal, Contacts, Safari links: I am a very frequent user of the mobileme syncing on all of these.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 18, 02:49 PM
Samsung will come up with actual numbers sold, not shipped, finally. Apple will see how few it is and drop the suit.
cvaldes
Apr 7, 01:33 PM
All Apple did was created a premium brand. Technology was cheap and affordable in the MP3 market. You could pick up an MP3 player for under a $100 bucks until Apple came into the market with its $300 dollar iPod.
And you still can buy MP3 players that are far cheaper than what Apple offers.
Apple did not come to dominate this market with cost competition. They did it by providing a better overall consumer experience. If you judge by specs, you'd buy a Sansa instead of an iPod. However Joe Consumer doesn't care about specs.
And you still can buy MP3 players that are far cheaper than what Apple offers.
Apple did not come to dominate this market with cost competition. They did it by providing a better overall consumer experience. If you judge by specs, you'd buy a Sansa instead of an iPod. However Joe Consumer doesn't care about specs.
dscuber9000
May 4, 04:02 PM
I'm going to get a Lion disc because that is safer, but yeah, I don't see anything outrageous with having the option to just download it.
ThemacNub
Apr 10, 06:37 AM
48/2(9+3) Brackets first
48/2(12) Brackets first. Then division, multiplication, addition, subtraction
48/24
2
48/2(12) Brackets first. Then division, multiplication, addition, subtraction
48/24
2
Super Dave
Jul 30, 05:16 AM
This sounds cool. Initially, though; I was kind of turned off by the idea of Apple doing a cellphone.
Unfortunately, I'm pulled back into thinking, "What could Apple do with phones that hasn't already been done." Small, light, photos, video, internet, music, games, personal organization? Most of this is pretty well covered with the current offerings. So what is going to be the selling point here? Is it going to be expensive or affordable? Is it going to be full-featured or bare bones?
Without even getting into new things, they could just do it well. Cell phones have interfaces like goats. Every single one of them.
David:cool:
Unfortunately, I'm pulled back into thinking, "What could Apple do with phones that hasn't already been done." Small, light, photos, video, internet, music, games, personal organization? Most of this is pretty well covered with the current offerings. So what is going to be the selling point here? Is it going to be expensive or affordable? Is it going to be full-featured or bare bones?
Without even getting into new things, they could just do it well. Cell phones have interfaces like goats. Every single one of them.
David:cool:
Tailpike1153
Apr 21, 02:46 PM
I hope they call it the MacServe :D
:). I like the name. Alot better than iServe.
:). I like the name. Alot better than iServe.
0 comments:
Post a Comment